If a coup d'etat could happen to the U.S. in the mid-1980s, what else are we missing?

As subsequent events clearly showed, with President Ronald Reagan demonstrating clear signs of Alzheimer's Disease while still in the White House,
which has been confirmed in later years, consider how many people had to participate in the cover-up of the fact that the American Chief Executive was
unfit for office.

According to the 25th Amendment, an incapacitated President should be removed from office when any medical condition would keep that President from
adequately performing his duties, allowing the power of his office to follow legally to the Vice President. However, no adminstrative staff member,
cabinet member, member of Congress, member of the Departments of State, Defense, or anyone else, ever stood up and said, "This President is ill and
cannot perform his duties. He needs to be legally removed from office, according to the Constitutional precepts."

Since the President was not removed from office, all of those necessary actions for President Reagan were thus performed by staff members, the Joint
Chiefs, Senators, House of Representative members, State Department members, and even personal aides. Because Reagan could not recall the information
he had been briefed a day or two before, those actions were then completed by people that were not elected by the people to perform the duties of the
highest office in the land.

Think of this alone - how did they decide among themselves who would be authorized to control the launch codes for all of our nuclear weapons? Would
that supreme authority really be left in the hands of an Alzheimer's patient?

If this had happened in some "Banana Republic" off the coast of South America, etc., it would be viewed as just another case of "ugly politics" in
a Third-World country. Sadly, this instead occurred in the United States of America.

In the upcoming book, this is referred to as another example of "hiding in plain sight" for the actions of the people who choose to lead our nation,
but not to do so by following the laws of the land. And the Alzheimer's was so bad that Nancy would not allow any significant post-Presidential
public interviews because they would have demonstrated how badly the President's mind had deteriorated. In the same way I previously tried to
address the problems with the Dulce facility and the crazy events of Tonopah/Areas 51 &52/Groom Lake areas, we simply follow along like dumb sheep.

Typically, a coup d'état uses the extant government's power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook,
military historian Edward Luttwak says: “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then
used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of
a coup d'état.

In a sense, this HAS happened in the US, though I suspect Reagan was not the president it actually happened under, I tend to think it occurred more
around the time Kennedy was assasinated. I would say that every president since that time has either been a "fool" (Reagan, Carter, ) or a
conspirator (the Bushes, Clinton) I am on the fence as to whether or not Obama is in the former or latter category, and I do believe that Clinton
began in the one camp and then ended up in the latter. I tend to think the same of Obama, that he began as a fool and is being converted while in
office.

In the US, however, this overthrow of our representative democracy is kept on the down low. We are given the illusion of a representative government,
and the illusion of free elections, but in fact, our government deliberately declines to do what we ask it to. Only the minimum pretense needed to
keep us from realizing that we have no representation is given. It is easier to control us that way, if we realized we lost our government years ago,
and we in essence in a facist state, we might try to fight back. Because we are not sure, and we think perhaps our leaders are acting on behalf of
part of the electorate, even if we ourselves dont like it, we do nothing, and better still, we become disenfranchised with democracy and voting
itself.

It is contrived and controlled apathy and hopelessness. And ironically, this round was sold to us as "Hope and Change," when in fact we have gotten
neither.

Stop feeding the machine. Pick a third party and vote for them, and stop picking between two "dummy" candidates.

Reagan was giving public interviews and speeches until he was diagnosed with Alzheimers in 94. Perhaps you are talking about the head injury he took
in the summer of 89? Although he was in plenty of public speaking settings right after that as well. However I some people in the Reagan family have
claimed that the head injury in 89 led to and early onset of Alzheimers in 94. He was out of office at that point though. So I am little confused on
what your talking about.

Presidents dont have any power anyway. Guys like Bush snr probably did, head of the empires secret police and all that, so someone like him in power,
is very dangerous and probably carried a hell of a lot of autonomy in that office. Thats the type of guy that has the power to be accidently killing
billionaire CEO's in airplane crashes.

Anyone else, guys like Reagen?, actor?, head of the actors union?, pffft, bought and paid for im affraid. Chances are not one #ing thing he ever did
or said was was of his own accord.

No what he is saying is that individuals covered up the fact that the
president was incompentent and basically covered it up instead of
following proper precedures to replace him. SO...IF THEY COVERED
THAT UP - WHAT OTHER THINGS BEHIND THE SCENES ARE THEY
WILLING TO COVER UP. DOH- a homer minute huh?

Typically, a coup d'état uses the extant government's power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook,
military historian Edward Luttwak says: “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then
used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of
a coup d'état.

In a sense, this HAS happened in the US, though I suspect Reagan was not the president it actually happened under, I tend to think it occurred more
around the time Kennedy was assasinated. I would say that every president since that time has either been a "fool" (Reagan, Carter, ) or a
conspirator (the Bushes, Clinton) I am on the fence as to whether or not Obama is in the former or latter category, and I do believe that Clinton
began in the one camp and then ended up in the latter. I tend to think the same of Obama, that he began as a fool and is being converted while in
office.

In the US, however, this overthrow of our representative democracy is kept on the down low. We are given the illusion of a representative government,
and the illusion of free elections, but in fact, our government deliberately declines to do what we ask it to. Only the minimum pretense needed to
keep us from realizing that we have no representation is given. It is easier to control us that way, if we realized we lost our government years ago,
and we in essence in a facist state, we might try to fight back. Because we are not sure, and we think perhaps our leaders are acting on behalf of
part of the electorate, even if we ourselves dont like it, we do nothing, and better still, we become disenfranchised with democracy and voting
itself.

It is contrived and controlled apathy and hopelessness. And ironically, this round was sold to us as "Hope and Change," when in fact we have gotten
neither.

Stop feeding the machine. Pick a third party and vote for them, and stop picking between two "dummy" candidates.

No what he is saying is that individuals covered up the fact that the
president was incompentent and basically covered it up instead of
following proper precedures to replace him. SO...IF THEY COVERED
THAT UP - WHAT OTHER THINGS BEHIND THE SCENES ARE THEY
WILLING TO COVER UP. DOH- a homer minute huh?

Because he is saying it does not make it true. We know Reagan did indeed have lots of public speeches and contact with the public all the way up
through 94. Not to mention if any of it was even remotely true the Dems would have lit him and and Bush Sr. up in the election. I mean even if just
a rumor existed they would have run with it.

Sorry, you are ALL wrong! Yes, there was a coup. The first phase was in 1913 and the final stages were completed in 1933. Everything since then has
been merely theatre. I'm not about to try to explain it again on the umpteenth thread. Do some research... there are dozens of threads discussing
it. In fact, one is currently underway called US Political Secrecy: Timeline for
Legislative Enslavement.

That's just one - take the time to follow the rabbit down the hole. Be warned, it will scare the hell out of you but it will enlighten you.

then when Kennedy tried to shake it....
What amazes me is that the evidence has shown, and this has been known for some time now, that Kennedy's assassination was a coup d'etat.
Committed by the CIA in conjunction with the Zionist bankers and the mob.
LBJ just stepped right up and did the dirty on the peeps.
no minting our own money that would be the right thing to do.
hey they gotts opium poppy bush(es)GET EM!
why we'll just replace the rum running mobster with the
zionist mobster

It has been released to the public and apparently went over most people's heads...
Bullet made a U turn in mid air, yeah of course they do.
Hey look! a naked boob at a football game!
Right on! I love my government.
they make naked boobs at football games.

Dan, all of that is true, but that is NOT the Coup. The coup occurred LONG before JFK. The problem was that JFK felt like he didn't have to play
along with all of the hard work that the corporatists and bankers put into owning and controlling the country. So, put simply, he was removed and
replaced with someone who would continue to play along.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.